The Louisiana Democrat. [volume] (Alexandria, La.) 1845-1918, 1887-11-09
THE HUNT BOLT.
A Response to Inquiries as to Gov.
Nichols Connection with 1t.
The Attempt to Disfranchise Seven
Thousand Democrats in the
Interest Of a Bolter.
New Orleans States.

oA eioufnoy, signed by number OF citizens
OF that place and neighborhood, asking us il
it is true that Gov. Nichols made speeches
IN favor OF the Hunt bolt in 1854" Our
correspondents say that the fact is denied,
but that If it is true. many persons in that
section OF the State who have favored Gen.
Nichols will support Coy. McEnery.
In reply to our Flournoy correspondents,
several or whom We recognize as old friends,
we state positively that Gen. Nichols did
make speeches in favor Of the Hunt bolt and
that he gave all his influence to aid that
utterly unjustitable and indefensible revolt
against the regular Democratic party at a
time when the election of President was
supposed to hang upon even one State, and
that that revolt threatened the success Of the
democratic party in Louisiana. 1t is need
less tor us to rummage over old newspaper
flies Tor the reports OF Gen. Nichols speeches
In favor OF the Hunt bolt which our friends
ernor himself, or any of his supporters, to
deny the fact that he made speeches i'll favor
OF the bolt. since be and his spokesman,
Judge White, have themselves admitted that
he not only did SO, but used all his great per-
sonai influence to defeat Col. st. Martin, the
true, stainless and untiinching a Democrat
as ever trod the soil of Louisiana
But though we cannot comply with the re-
guest OF our friends of Flournoy to send
them reports OF Gen; Nichols speeches in
favor OF the Hunt bolt, we reproduce, in an
other column of this mornings STATES, an
editorial printed ia his special organ, the
PlcGYUne, on Tie morning of Oct. ~, 1854,
headed. Gen. Nichols to the Front" by
winch our friends will see that Gen. Nichols
worker in the Hunt bolt, but that he was
also, at the very time that the presidential
election was pending. violent denouncer
OF the Democratic State administration. We
press upon the attention OF our friends at
flournoy and elsewhere throughout the
State The editorial referred to.
Immediately after Gov. McErery's nomi-
nation IN 1888, Gen. Nichols organ the
Picayttsse, had appealed to tine Democracy to
oolt That nomination aud vote for his Radical
opponent, Stevenson: and Mt the time OF the
appearance OF the editorial we to-day repro
duce and Of the speech Of Nichols to which
1t REFERS, the PiedYf.sie, Nichols, and the
great body OF the reformers, were engaged
III an organized and determined effort, aided
aud abetted by Fl. G. Yarmouth, the negro
aadlcal chief. Jim LOWS, United States Sr-
pefyiSor Norton, and the whole Radical Gus
tomhouse gang, to defeat the election of the
regular nominee OF the Democratic conven-
ton Of the First District.
This is q fact. We defy any living man to
deny n single word of it, II our friends at
tlonrnoy OF anywhere else IN Louisiana
doubt II, We recommend them to submit this
article to Gen. Nichols himself and challenge
MN 10 answer, categorically, whether it is
true, word for word, or not. He cannot, he
Will net. deny that every word of what we
Say is absolutely true.
The states has time and again exposed the
character OF the, Hunt movement in 1884 and
Gen. Nichols connection Herewith. But
there is one, the last phase Of il, which we
have never exposed in ali its atrocity, from a
IlnnlGprI tir nitnt, tl,ar ,u @I,,,
tempt OF the leaders Of that movement, the
lesders of the then so-called Reform Democ.
racy. the chief captains of the present re-
formers or Nichollsites, 10 disfranchise 7oGO
Cleveland and st. Martin voters In the First
District by invoking the aid OF the infamous
Federal election law.
The reformers Of 1884, and their organ
which bolted, and advised everybody else to
bolt, the nomination of Gov. McEnery in
1858, Ike the reforners of 1887, assumed
at the outset that the people were with them.
But, az the!r canvass progressed, they dis
covered their mistake: and, in the despera-
ton OF their disappointment and bitterness,
they broke through ali Democratic bounds
and resorted 10 the very worst Of those tactics
that had rendered Radical:sm in Louisiana 80
odlous. they had but one hope Of success,
aGo tftat fsS 10 disfo4lc7siSe teli JsItozD DeAt-
ocrats. This Federal election law offered
them the means of doing this.
7 his so-cailed law was one OF those fruits
OF foul rebellion, p" that lhad. Stevens, carly
after the war, declared we should sat. II
WAS, along with carpet bsggery, regro-suf-
rage and scailaWaggery, part OF the cargo Of
Teccnssruction-that ''periidious bark built
In the eclipse and rugged with curses dark, y
ssnt among US III the dprllest era Of our his
nant mood. Ihis iniquitous statute was de-
bounced by every Democrat in The Union,
by every Democrat i'll Congress, by the only
two Democratic. members OF the Supreme
Court OF the United States, by every Demo-
cratic newspaper 10 the broad limita Of this
De03cc''atS, q me i'r-ormers AID Gen. Nic7-
OTIS to-dsa-ti,e Ne1C Orleans Picog2me.
In 1884 the Picaye.'se ,declurej that this
statute WAS NOT only the law, but that it WAS
Democrats of the First District demanded its
Invocation. And, as we have said, the lead.
crS OF the Hunt bolt or the reform Denoc-
raey did invoeateis. BY precisely the same
means that the Radicals under the same law
singled ont those Democrats they desired TO
dlsiranchise, these reform lenders singled
out 7o00 Ecfnocrats In the First District
whom they desired to digfranchise, and
called upon the Federal authorities to order
the State Supervisor OF Hegistra ton to strike
theif names off the registration list. IL the
attempt to enforce this iniqui.ous order the
Federal authorities Q number of times a.
rested the supervisor of the sovereign State
Of Louisiana, who refused TO obey the order.
Finally, the reform leaders appealed to the
Federal Court to enforce their demands
mace through Federal deputy marshals and
the Federal supervisor.
Ihe leaders OF the Democracy, represented
By Senator j. 3. ltustis, aided by Mr. larry
CDonnell, resisted the consummation Of
this outrage. IN his speech, Mr.. E,stis said
to Don A. Pardoe. the Federal Judge, that il
he dared to give his judicial sanction to so
monstious IN outrage upon the rights OF
American citizens as Was contemplated by
tho demand OF the reformers, he would write
his name upon 8 higher and blacker pinnacle
OF lnfamy thap had e7en the dissraced and
scorned DureIl.
1t is needless to say that even Judge Par
dec, q bitter Radical, and an old fashioned
partisan Judge, found the demand of the
leaders Of the Hunt bolt too scsndalous for
him to copntenance: and he, the Radical,
thing.
We d'.fy ma mgr 70 derry g single ssstenaeat
IRE hare 2!2ade. We defy the New Orleans
fiGoyssae 10 deny that it Endorsed this pro
ciared tbs Federal election law TO be a wise
and Just sta5ttte, aud held that the Denloc-
racy of Louisiana demanded its invocation
We challenge any refornler today to deny
that this measure Tas taken in 1884 by the
supporters OF Iii. tnnt.
We DO not know that Gov. Nichols was "
party to the transaction, but we do know
that he Was . supporter of the Hunt move.
mept: and we do know tEat his voice, thoneh
he Was on the hastings in the First District,
and though he was III the couucila Of the
reform Demo rata. wSs never lifted in pro-
test against this attempted outrage; we fur
ther know that non here is he on record as
opposing or condenining thi1 Outrage One
word from him would have STOPPED any such
proceeding. he never SPOKE that word, and
il was left TO Senator Eustis 10 defend the
Democracy Of Louisiana against the contem-
plated outrage, and to q Federal. radical.
partisan Judge 10 sepelah the att2mpt of
Gen. kjcholla supporters TO Giafr&nchise.
rcconstrnction Legislation, 1000 Democratic
voters IN one congressional district.
What have our fiournOy friends to say to
this; Aud We challenge any living man to
deny q single word OF it,
Gov. Nichols To the Front.
Pjcayune, Oct. 81. i35l.
/. II, I folF